Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim Zia, J.- This appeal by leave of the Court has been preferred against the order of the High Court dated 04.02.2015, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants and proforma respondents, herein, has been dismissed in limine.
2. The brief and necessary facts of the case are that the appellants and proforma respondents, herein, filed a writ petition in the High Court for issuance of a direction to the effect that their names be entered in the seniority list of Assistant Sub-Inspectors/ Sub-Inspectors and also in the promotion list. They further prayed that a direction be issued for their promotion. The learned High Court after necessary proceedings, dismissed the writ petition in limine vide impugned order dated 04.02.2015 on the ground that the service of the lady police is to be governed under Chapters 12 and 13 of the Police Rules. The learned High Court also directed for strictly following the principles formulated by standing order No.1/2015. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have now filed the instant appeal by leave of the Court.
3. Mr. Muhammad Reaz Alam, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellants, after narration of necessary facts submitted that the learned Judge of the High Court fell in error of law while dismissing the writ petition in limine.
According to the stated facts very important constitutional and legal propositio ns, specially the constitutional guaranteed fundamental right of no discri mination on the basis of sex, are involved. He further submitted that even in the light of the comments filed by the respondents, the detail deliberation was required for resolution of the propositions raised before the High Court in writ petition. He further submitted that even otherwise, the impugned judgment is self contradictory as on one hand the writ petition has been dismissed in limine, whereas, on the other hand, the direction has been issued for strictly following the principle formulated in the standing order .
4. Conversely , Mr. Mehmood Hussain Chaudhary , Additional Advocate-Genera l, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned judgment is according to law, hence, calling for no interference.
However , when he was confronted that whether there is any provision of law (i.e., Police Act or Police Rules) disentitling the appellant from promotion, his answer was in negative.
5. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and also examined the record made available. The appellants are civil servant s and right of promotion is one of the rights recognized by law. They have raised important legal propositions in their writ petition regarding discrimination and status of the standing order issued by the respondents. It is also admitted position that according to constitutional guaranteed fundamental rights there can be no discrimination in service matters on the basis of sex. In this state of affairs, the propositions raised in writ petition being of important nature require serious consideration. Thus, dismissal of writ petition in limine amounts to miscarriage of justice.
6. In this state of affairs, any further observation may amount to pre-judge the matter , thus, avoiding the same, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is admitted for regular hearing. Consequently , the case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the same on merits according to law after obtaining written state ment from the respondents and completion of required legal process.
This appeal stands accepted with no order as to costs.